SHAWNEE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Monday, February
8, 2016

Shawnee
County Annex

6:00 PM

Roll Call and Announcement of Hearing Procedure:
Christi McKenzie, Chair, called the meeting to order and asked for roll call to
be taken.

Members Present: Christi
McKenzie, Nancy Johnson, Jerome Desch, Brian
Jacques, Pat Tryon, Dave Macfee and Matt
Appelhanz. With seven members
present, a quorum was established and the meeting was called to order.

Approval of January 11,
2016, Public Hearing Minutes: Mr. Tryon moved to approve
the January 11, 2016, Public Hearing minutes, seconded by Mr. Jacques,
and with a unanimous voice vote, the minutes were approved.

Communications:
There were no communications by staff.

Ex Parte Communication by
Members of the Commission: There were no Ex Parte
communications expressed by members of the Commission.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest by Members of
the Commission or Staff: There were no declarations of conflict
of interest by commission members or staff.

Zoning and
Subdivision Items:

1.James
Bassett Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat Phases) [P16/03] by
Schmidt, Beck and Boyd Engineering for property located on the east side of SW
Docking Road approximately 1,320-feet north of SW 57th Street in
Dover Township.

Mr. Beagle stated the request
was for approval of a preliminary/final plat that would divide the
44.44 acre property into two residential lots. The two lots would each be
accessible by two 60’ wide legs which were currently not compliant with the
200’ frontage plat exemption. The resulting plat of subdivision would bring it
into compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.

Water service would be provided
by Osage County Rural Water District No. 8 and sewage disposal would be
provided by individual septic systems approved by the Shawnee County Health
Agency. Staff was recommending the preliminary and final plats be approved as
submitted.

Ms. McKenzie
asked if there were any questions for Mr. Beagle. Mr. Jacques asked if any of
the neighbors had contacted staff. Mr. Beagle stated none had.

Mr. Desch asked
if the properties could be replatted in the future. Mr. Beagle said additional
lots would not be feasible due to the lack of public street access.

Ms. McKenzie asked if the
applicant was present and wanted to make a presentation.

Ms. McKenzie asked if anyone had
any questions for Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Desch asked if they were going to build
houses on the properties. Mr. Schmidt stated they would be building two
houses.

Mr. Desch asked if it was
compliant with the Health Agency’s requirements. Mr. Beagle said it was.

Mr. Macfee asked what determined
the number of lots and couldn’t there be additional lots. Mr. Beagle said
each lot had to have their own frontage. It would be difficult to further
divide since each lot currently has only 60-feet of frontage.

Ms. Johnson asked if they could
put another road in and put something in the back. Mr. Beagle said there were
only two long legs for access which would prevent additional lots. Mr. Schmidt
stated they would have to come back and replat further if other lots were to be
considered.

With no one to speak in favor or
in opposition, Ms. McKenzie closed the public hearing and asked for
discussion from the members.

With no discussion by the
Commissioners, Ms. McKenzie asked for a motion.

Mr. Appelhanz moved to
recommend Approval of the proposed subdivision; seconded by Mr. Macfee.
With a vote of 7-0-0, the preliminary and final plats were Approved.

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning
Items

There were no comments on Non-Agenda Planning and Zoning items.

Discussion of
Planning Related Issues

1.Building
Code

Mr. Beagle
stated the County Commission approved the formation of a 20‑person Building
Code Committee (BCC) on January 21st. It consists of individuals with
various skill sets. Their first meeting is scheduled for February 10th
at 5:30 p.m.

The County
Commission had also set some expectations for the BCC in changing the time
frame to prepare a recommendation from two years to one year and stated the
building code program would need to be completely self sufficient so as to
eliminate a tax footprint.

Mr. Beagle said
he had asked the County Commission about working with the City. The County
Commission deferred that to the Building Code Committee (BCC).

Ms. Johnson
asked if it could be completed in one year. Mr. Beagle said the County
Commission didn’t want to go beyond election cycles. He had told them the
Building Code Exploratory Committee members had indicated it could take up to
two years.

Mr. Jacques
asked if there was an expectation to work with the City. Mr. Beagle had asked
the County Commission. Commissioner Archer said there were no facts or data on
cost savings. They were looking to the Building Code Committee’s
recommendation.

2.Comprehensive Plan RFP

Mr. Beagle said
four (4) proposals were received from firms in Buffalo, New York; Chicago;
Lenexa; and Omaha. The County’s Technical Selection Committee had made a selection
but they weren’t announcing the name until negotiations were finalized. He was
meeting with representatives this week to work out the details and then it
would be submitted to the County Counselor’s office for review. He was pleased
with the responses to the RFP and the selection made by the committee. He
thought they would end up with a good product. The firm’s proposal included
public engagement which would help define opinions. The Comprehensive Plan
would be utilized as a decision making tool.

Mr. Beagle said
there would be a meeting with County officials and the Planning Commission
would be part of that process. They would need to think about current County
issues to be addressed by the consultant in getting the process started. There
would also be a steering committee comprised of County citizens that would be
the principal driver and the sounding board to the staff and consultant. He
wanted the Planning Commission members to identify possible members to serve on
the steering committee as well as any of them that would like to be included.

Ms. McKenzie
asked how many members would be on the steering committee. Mr. Beagle said
typically there would be 10-12 initially. Anything larger could be unwieldy.
Focus groups could then be created which would identify key issues to the
consultant.

Ms. McKenzie
asked if Mr. Beagle would have to go back to the County Commission for approval
of the steering committee. Mr. Beagle responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Beagle hoped to finalize discussion with the consultant this week and go back
to the County Commission in two to three weeks.

Ms. Johnson was
surprised the consultant was not locally based. Mr. Beagle said they needed to
match certain skill sets. Other firms may have already had other commitments.
Two of the companies who were sent proposals and responded to the RFP have
worked in Shawnee County before. The two companies from outside the state were
possibly trying to establish a presence here in the Midwest.

Ms. Johnson
asked how companies found out about the RFP. Mr. Beagle said information was
sent out directly to five companies and they had also placed it on the American
Planning Association’s website. You never knew who was going to respond. He
was appreciative of the APA website since it gives RFP’s national exposure and there
was no charge for the posting.

Ms. Johnson
said she wanted Mr. Beagle to meet with John Hunter of Heartland Visioning to
talk about focus groups.

In conclusion
Mr. Beagle stated there had been no discussion with the County Commission
regarding the steering committee. They might be able to offer additional names.

Adjournment:

Ms. Johnson moved to
adjourn, seconded by Mr. Jacques. A unanimous voice vote declared the public
hearing be adjourned, which was at 6:25 p.m.